I saw Robert Styles letter in the Aug. 19 issue just thought I’d share a few observations.

Obviously Mr. Styles is mechanically an excellent letter writer but reading other people’s inputs is not his forte. In my letter (Annexation Anomalies, Aug. 12) I did not talk about revenue balance being neutral.

In fact, I mentioned the non-balance that it would create and pondered toungue-in-cheek how that might be solved, perhaps in part by big increases in traffic violation revenues in the newly acquired areas. I did allude to the growing differences in housing prices in the 033 and 034 areas, and the politically incorrect image this creates, not to mention the fact that even current downtown Kirkland residents are getting uncomfortable with the I-can-build-my-mega-mansion-taller-than -yours mentality. If Mr. Styles has a problem with the contrasting average prices in these areas, I suggest he take it up with the real estate marketplace rather than refer to its reality as a myth.

However, I do I agree that the Kirkland of today cannot provide the extra financial means to pay for services in the PAA much less its own. They’ve already siphoned off major income-producing parts of 034, one of which (Totem Lake Shopping Center) has fizzled due to the recession. If income to support the newly-to-be-annexed areas is lacking, then what are the reasons for expansion? First, it would help to balance the seemingly inequitable distribution of home prices. We, the new Kirkland, could then point with snake-oil pride to the fact we have housing for all income groups. Next it would create increased political clout in extra-Kirkland governmental circles. That I fear is the real nitty-gritty.

Albert Chukitus, Kirkland